How is the Tory Government Doing?

Whitesince63 wrote:
Sluffy, just to clarify, I don’t recycle with a save the planet attitude, though I do particularly feel we must all consider the environmental situation when disposing of plastics which can be recycled and used again. Similarly tins and cardboard can also be recycled and general waste incinerated. It just makes sense to do it. Also, whilst I don’t share your views on CO2, I walk or use public transport where I can for both exercise and to save money on fuel and also because it’s one of the free things I get for being an old git. 

I know that you are totally convinced by the fossil fuel is bad lobby and CO2 being “proved” according to you to be the cause of Global Warming and I do fully respect your right to hold that view but along with an increasing number of environmentalists, scientists and physicists who take a different view I don’t subscribe to it. That’s my choice, I’m entitled to it and I haven’t seen anything to change it.

One absolutely indisputable fact is Sluffy that neither of us will be here to see if we’re right so there is little point our disagreeing over it. None of the major CO2 producers are going to relent so it’s only going to be the likes of our children who are going to be punished by our completely fruitless efforts to meet net zero timescales as governments in the virtue signalling west destroy our economies by removing a perfectly economic and efficient energy supply network by pinning our futures on systems that will never work. That won’t stop them destroying our countryside with windmills and solar farms and thousands of miles of ugly pylons in order to supply the EVs, Heat pumps and other paraphernalia that they’ll force upon us by removing what’s there now. If you think that’s worth it more fool you but hopefully the people like me will eventually force politicians of its folly before it becomes irreversible.

You wouldn't recycle if you hadn't a conscience - I know plenty people who couldn't give a fuck what they throw in the bin.

Recycling has no direct benefit to anyone who does it - they aren't earning money from doing so, it is a bit of an inconvenience to sort things out into the right piles, you aren't exercising as such - so why do it otherwise?

Right, who are these "increasing number of environmentalists, scientists and physicists" who deny this global warming is not from the burning of fossil fuels?

Name names and I'll research their backgrounds and funding.

I bet you haven't bothered to check any of them out have you...?

You just believe them as gospel because they simply say the things you want to hear...

The physics is real - there is no doubt whatsoever that the C02 isotope causing the current global warming is from the burning of fossil fuel - it can't be created otherwise.

And I asked you in my last post to be realistic - and you are not being so.

Clearly no one is going to say that from tomorrow we no longer burn fossil fuels and we will spend all the money there is in the world to cover the earth in windmills and solar panels.

So stop such a silly narrative that you continue to use.

We will carry on burning fossil fuels for decades ahead, the plan is to phase them out over time - that's how reality works.

Also it isn't virtue signalling changing from one thing to an alternative - for example we weren't 'virtue signalling' when we changed from leaded to unleaded petrol were we - we did so because the science told us it was polluting the air we breathed.

You're probably old enough to remember doing the same stopping having coal fires in our homes and moving to 'smokeless' zones, similarly because of air pollution.

So why to you is it such a big difference when the same 'science' (that doesn't change - it is universal and what we've built everything we know on) tells us about how this global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuel, and why is it 'virtue signalling' trying to do something about it?

Don't you even realise that the phrase 'virtue signalling' is in itself is just social-political phrase deliberately used to 'lead' people into a mindset that suits their cause?

Doing the right things for the right reasons isn't 'virtue signalling' it never has been.

You need to park all these propaganda narratives that you have let fill your head and look at things in a sensible and realistic way.

W63, thought you might find this interesting seeing you always refer to China as your reason that the rest of the world won't do much if anything until they get their finger out over global warming.

(fwiw I have posted about this before but clearly you hadn't bothered to read most of what I post...)

15:37
How can China be held to account on climate?

Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, reporting from COP28

Climate agreements like the Paris agreement generally avoid the big stick, preferring to encourage and sometimes embarrass countries large and small into compliance.

In relation to China, this has been a very successful approach so far.

China has achieved what it promised in Copenhagen in 2009 and is well on track to beat what was agreed in Paris.

True, these were the easy bits as previous pacts allowed China to continue to increase overall emissions but at a slower rate.

But by not criticising China in public and by encouraging the Asian giant’s engagement with the UN process, the US has helped the country to greater ambition.

In 2020 President Xi announced that China would peak emissions before 2030. Such has been the acceleration of renewables there’s a growing view that China might achieve this goal by next year - with huge implications for the rest of the world.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science-environment-67440257


It would seem even China sees that the global warming is man made and have realised they've got to get their arse into gear and do something immediate about it themselves!

I’m not against renewables Sluffy, I’ve always said we should look for other sources of energy because sooner or later fossil fuels will run out and we need alternatives, but for me wind and solar farms aren’t the answer. They may be part of it but not on their own. Desecrating the countryside with them plus thousands of miles of pylons doesn’t sound too good to me. If we’re going to reduce the use of oil and gas then put the money into similar fuels that can take advantage of current infrastructure. Surely if the money going into wind and solar went into bio fuels it would save a fortune. You might argue that would take time whilst wind and solar are here now but surely it makes sense to wait rather than throwing all the current technology like ICE engines and the gas systems and boilers away. 

I refuse to believe that science can’t come up with an alternative which doesn’t result in so much change and cost. As for the carbon argument, if the truth about the cost, life and environmental damage of EV’s was revealed I’m sure the public, including you would resist. I’m not having this need to rush all these things through by the scare stories of the eco zealots. The world isn’t going to end any time soon and even though I accept that efforts should be made to create alternatives to fossil fuels, the current options aren’t it for me. Nuclear is the obvious alternative along with small modular reactors which can be situated in current power stations already linked to the grid. That along with a move to eco fuels would be much more sensible. They’ve even flown a plane across the Atlantic with one so we know it works, it’s just about money and development like everything else.

Whitesince63 wrote:I’m not against renewables Sluffy, I’ve always said we should look for other sources of energy because sooner or later fossil fuels will run out and we need alternatives, but for me wind and solar farms aren’t the answer. They may be part of it but not on their own. Desecrating the countryside with them plus thousands of miles of pylons doesn’t sound too good to me. If we’re going to reduce the use of oil and gas then put the money into similar fuels that can take advantage of current infrastructure. Surely if the money going into wind and solar went into bio fuels it would save a fortune. You might argue that would take time whilst wind and solar are here now but surely it makes sense to wait rather than throwing all the current technology like ICE engines and the gas systems and boilers away. 

I refuse to believe that science can’t come up with an alternative which doesn’t result in so much change and cost. As for the carbon argument, if the truth about the cost, life and environmental damage of EV’s was revealed I’m sure the public, including you would resist. I’m not having this need to rush all these things through by the scare stories of the eco zealots. The world isn’t going to end any time soon and even though I accept that efforts should be made to create alternatives to fossil fuels, the current options aren’t it for me. Nuclear is the obvious alternative along with small modular reactors which can be situated in current power stations already linked to the grid. That along with a move to eco fuels would be much more sensible. They’ve even flown a plane across the Atlantic with one so we know it works, it’s just about money and development like everything else.

You still don't get it.

No the world isn't going to end anytime soon but it is going to change in a way that the environment won't be able to support human life as we know it.

The weather will change for a start, the oceans will start to lose its oxygen levels and not sustain sea life, the tropics will get to hot to support farming, the ice at the poles will melt and raise sea levels, drought and famine in many parts of the world would become the norm.

If you think world migration is bad now, we've seen absolutely nothing as to how it will become.

Yes, I know it sounds like a bad movie script but all that will begin to happen if we don't act before it becomes too late - that's the science of what WILL happen.

WE (the world) have to act now - the longer we leave it the worse it will be.

Even China seems to be getting its finger out, Brazil has finally got around to slowing down the chopping down of the Amazon forest...

Amazon rainforest: Deforestation in Brazil at six-year low
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-66393360

...the world IS slowly taking this very, very seriously at long last.

Shame that many people like you are still in denial about the urgency and need to change even if it costs us money or creates 'eyesores' to look at.

Not that I think you will even bother with this but I'll try anyway...

Remember all your comments about immigration and Muslims and how I told you about it being right wing 'white supremacy' propaganda, how I told you how life really is in highly urbanised environments with majority ethnic residents, how the vast majority of us live in peace together, etc, etc..

Well here is a 30 minute audio podcast from an expert in terrorism, more or less saying exactly what I did...

Try listening to someone who is informed and knowledgeable and not simply to the voices who tell you what you want to hear for a change...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0ghbs1x

Released On: 29 Sep 2023Available for over a year

The Great Replacement is an idea fuelling far-right recruitment around the world - the idea that white communities and culture are being purposely replaced by non-white migrants.

Many far-right terrorists have referenced this theory as the driving force behind their murderous actions - but where does this idea originate from, and how seriously should we be taking its proliferation here in the UK?

Terrorism expert Raffaello Pantucci explores the roots of the Great Replacement and asks if this is just a far-right conspiracy theory as some critics claim, or is there a kernel of truth reflected in the UK's changing demography?

If so, how are communities - and the government - managing this change? Immigration is often a difficult topic of public debate, with many people concerned that any questioning of immigration policy will label them as racist.

But if we can’t talk more openly, without fear of judgement, are we at risk of handing control of the immigration narrative to extremists?

Sluffy wrote:

You still don't get it.

No the world isn't going to end anytime soon but it is going to change in a way that the environment won't be able to support human life as we know it.

The weather will change for a start, the oceans will start to lose its oxygen levels and not sustain sea life, the tropics will get to hot to support farming, the ice at the poles will melt and raise sea levels, drought and famine in many parts of the world would become the norm.

If you think world migration is bad now, we've seen absolutely nothing as to how it will become.

Yes, I know it sounds like a bad movie script but all that will begin to happen if we don't act before it becomes too late - that's the science of what WILL happen.

WE (the world) have to act now - the longer we leave it the worse it will be.

Even China seems to be getting its finger out, Brazil has finally got around to slowing down the chopping down of the Amazon forest...

Amazon rainforest: Deforestation in Brazil at six-year low
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-66393360

...the world IS slowly taking this very, very seriously at long last.

Shame that many people like you are still in denial about the urgency and need to change even if it costs us money or creates 'eyesores' to look at.

Sluffy, I’m not denying climate change, nor the need to move away from fossil fuels to renewables but I’m sorry that I don’t agree with the scare stories of impending doom and gloom if we don’t do it right now. My problem is the pace we’re trying to make the massive and expensive changes to systems that are unproven and could itself end in disaster.

We moved away from windmills centuries ago the only people who drove EVs were the milkmen who delivered my pinta’s every day. We removed water tanks from our houses, now we’re supposed to put them back as part of our heat pumps which so far have been proved to be both ineffective and hugely expensive. Look, I’m all for renewables but only when both the cost, technology and efficiency warrant it, not when some artificial date set by bureaucrats decided things should happen. 

This country is already a leader in carbon reduction so good on us, I’m in no way against that but we’re being scammed by people, some rich, some just gullible, on this net zero malarkey to fill the pockets of the likes of Bill Gates and his WEF cronies and yet you think I’m the one who’s daft.

Whitesince63 wrote: Sluffy, I’m not denying climate change, nor the need to move away from fossil fuels to renewables but I’m sorry that I don’t agree with the scare stories of impending doom and gloom if we don’t do it right now. My problem is the pace we’re trying to make the massive and expensive changes to systems that are unproven and could itself end in disaster.

We moved away from windmills centuries ago the only people who drove EVs were the milkmen who delivered my pinta’s every day. We removed water tanks from our houses, now we’re supposed to put them back as part of our heat pumps which so far have been proved to be both ineffective and hugely expensive. Look, I’m all for renewables but only when both the cost, technology and efficiency warrant it, not when some artificial date set by bureaucrats decided things should happen. 

This country is already a leader in carbon reduction so good on us, I’m in no way against that but we’re being scammed by people, some rich, some just gullible, on this net zero malarkey to fill the pockets of the likes of Bill Gates and his WEF cronies and yet you think I’m the one who’s daft.

You don't believe in the scare stories of impending doom and gloom but you believe in the scare stories of being scammed by the likes of Bill gates and the WEF???

As to your question if I really think you are daft - then I think you've just answered it yourself..!

Don't you read what I post?

Well clearly you don't as you have several times admitted you don't.

Look, I've stated numerous times that the changes needed to be made ARE NOT going to be done BY ANYONE in the near future - I don't know why you persist to have this bee in your bonnet that it would be???

We (the world) knows that we HAVE TO make a start (which we have) and move towards greatly reducing the use of fossil fuel.

We (the world) can only do that by playing the cards we have in our hands now, no doubt better ways of doing it will be developed and implemented in time but we (the world) simply do not have the time to sit on our hands, doing nothing, until we eventually come up with something better than the ways we have to use now.

Things change as well - thirty years ago it was unimaginable that we would all be driving about in electric cars and it seems likely that in the next 20 years most of us will.

No doubt if you and I were talking about this 30 years ago, you would be telling me the experts were wrong, you didn't believe in the science, we would have to spend billions on infrastructure changes, building many thousands of charging points, scrapping thousands of petrol stations, that the likes of Richard Branson or whoever back then, would be ripping us off for billions and a million other reasons why in your view we should not be moving from petrol cars to electric drive ones!!!

Point being that it wasn't done in a day as you seem to believe the change to green energy will be?  We (the world) have been talking about global warming at have got to this stage from the start of this century.  China as an example has committed to carbon neutrality before 2060 - ie from start to finish is 60 years not by this time next week or whatever timescale you seem to have in your head for global warming changes!

And it's just absolutely ridiculous to talk about going back to things like windmills and water tanks (I've still got mine, doesn't everyone, how did they get their water otherwise?), things change, some rightly so and some in retrospect wrongly - take putting asbestos into properties for instance.

As for Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum and stuff like that, well that's what your right wing Libertarian beliefs are all about - this is in fact what YOU are voting for namely the end of government restraints - minimum wage, Health and Safety legislation, equal pay, racial discrimination, air pollution legislation, etc, etc, and instead for free unfettered corporate globalism - don't you understand the implications of your own beliefs???

I've said previously that your basic problem is that you are a solid Conservative voter who has over time been radicalised into believing more and more right wing Libertarian rhetoric and find yourself conflicted in that you can't understand (and to your credit), disagree with their behaviour yet believe in their polices which have lurched towards extremism (exiting the Human rights Commission, talk about white supremacy (the Muslim 'threat') Trickledown Economics and the dismantling of the state (Trump rejection of the 2020 election, Johnson lies to Parliament, etc, etc).

You realise that the politicians who represent the party you vote for are 'bad' but you fully believe in their policies they 'push' are 'good'- hence your awareness that something is wrong but you can't work out exactly what it is?

I don't doubt your heart is in the right place but you've been been politicised into believing what comes out of the Conservative central office and haven't realised it has dragged you into mainstream Libertarian ideology.

You've been politically hi-jacked by the right wing of your own party and haven't even realised it!

To prove my point about what I've said here...

Sluffy wrote:I've said previously that your basic problem is that you are a solid Conservative voter who has over time been radicalised into believing more and more right wing Libertarian rhetoric and find yourself conflicted in that you can't understand (and to your credit), disagree with their behaviour yet believe in their polices which have lurched towards extremism (exiting the Human rights Commission, talk about white supremacy (the Muslim 'threat') Trickledown Economics and the dismantling of the state (Trump rejection of the 2020 election, Johnson lies to Parliament, etc, etc).

You realise that the politicians who represent the party you vote for are 'bad' but you fully believe in their policies they 'push' are 'good'- hence your awareness that something is wrong but you can't work out exactly what it is?

I don't doubt your heart is in the right place but you've been been politicised into believing what comes out of the Conservative central office and haven't realised it has dragged you into mainstream Libertarian ideology.

You've been politically hi-jacked by the right wing of your own party and haven't even realised it!

...which of course you disagree with and can't self identify yourself as being - and claim you are a centralist (and are speaking for the majority in this country) whilst it is me and my ilk that are raving lefty loonies, I thought you might like to reflect on the current Conservative Party MP's in Parliament view on Braverman's views on scrapping the laws on Human Rights over immigration...

This from todays speech by Braverman -

"The Conservative Party faces electoral oblivion in a matter of months if we introduce yet another bill destined to fail," she told MPs.

"Do we fight for sovereignty or do we let our party die?"

Mrs Braverman said the bill must deliver on the prime minister's pledge to stop small boats crossing the Channel and set out a number of tests she said it must meet to do this.

These included addressing the Supreme Court's concerns about the safety of Rwanda and "blocking off all routes of challenge" to enable flights carrying asylum seekers to the east African country before the next election.

Although Mrs Braverman said she supported leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), she said this was not the only way to stop the boats.

"I accept that the government won't do that and that it is a debate for another day," she added.

Instead she proposed that the bill should override the UK's Human Rights Act, the ECHR and other international law.

"The powers to detain and remove must be exercisable notwithstanding the Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Refugee Convention, and all other international law," she said.

She added that Parliament should be prepared to sit over Christmas to pass the bill.

Tory splits
Mrs Braverman was flanked by supporters as she gave her statement but there are splits within the Conservative Party over her proposals.

One senior Tory MP told the BBC her statement "was just the latest performance in the leadership pantomime".

Rather than disregarding human rights law, another option is for the bill to simply declare Rwanda a safe country.

The BBC understands Mr Sunak is hoping to steer a middle course between those options.

The One Nation Caucus, which has a current membership of 106 Tory MPs, called on the prime minister to "think twice before overriding" either the ECHR and HRA.

The group's chairman, former Deputy Prime Minister Damian Green said: "Successive Conservative governments have played a vital role in creating and protecting the ECHR as well as the Refugee and Torture conventions."

Another leading member of the group, Matt Warman, said overriding the ECHR was "a red line for a number of Conservatives".

However, Mark Francois, chairman of the right-wing European Research Group (ERG), said it would not back any new legislation that does not "fully respect the sovereignty of Parliament, with unambiguous wording".

Former Minister Sir Simon Clarke said there was "raw anger" among his constituents about migration.

He told the BBC's Politics Live programme: "It cannot be the case that a human rights framework which was set up in the late 1940s, which could never have envisaged a world in which tens of thousands of people were coming to this country illegally and we were unable to deport them, is regarded as so sacrosanct that we can't change it."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67639843


So there you have it - 1 in 3 Conservative MP's are already signed up AGAINST scrapping Human Rights legislation and the group that supports ignoring Human Rights is a Right Wing group and has been described as "operating as a party within a party"...

Labour MPs are demanding a full investigation by parliament's expenses watchdog, IPSA, into the ''funding and activities'' of a group of hard-line Conservative MPs who have been branded a ''party within a party'' .

More than a quarter of a million pounds in official expenses has been claimed by a group of 40 Tory MPs for ''research'' carried out by the European Research Group (ERG). All the MPs are members or supporters of the ERG whose stated aim is a hard, uncompromised exit from the European Union.

The Tory MPs, including members of Theresa May's cabinet, have channelled the money to the ERG over the last five years, covering the period of both the David Cameron and May administrations.

Under IPSA rules, MPs cannot claim for research or work ''done for, or on behalf of a political party.''

Following an investigation by open Democracy, the former Conservative minister, Anna Soubry, called the operation of the ERG ''a party within a party'' and stated that there were  questions over whether or not public money should be given to the group.

No accounts or membership list of the ERG is published, despite repeated requests from open Democracy in recent weeks. During an interview with Channel Four News this week, the current chair of the ERG, the Fareham MP Suella Fernandes [now Braverman], refused once again to reveal who were members of the ERG and said that information was only available to the group itself.

Fernandes looked increasingly uncomfortable after she accepted that the ERG did take public money, but dismissed the suggestion that transparency of its activities should be automatic.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/mps-demand-full-investigation-of-hard-brexit-backing-tory-party-within-par/

Ok that article is a few years old now but it does show the ideology behind the group which has not changed - Braverman having been there all along.

In simple terms it IS part of the extreme right wing groups and ideologies that you have bought into and thus doing moved away from the centralist views that you believe you hold.

There is nothing wrong in having extreme right wing beliefs, there's no shame in being a Conservative centralist BUT you can't be both at the same time!

And again about being extreme right wing in your beliefs...

Robert Jenrick resigns as immigration minister

Robert Jenrick has resigned as immigration minister, the home secretary has said.

"That has been confirmed," James Cleverly said after repeated questioning from MPs in the Commons.

It comes as the government unveiled emergency legislation aimed at enabling its Rwanda policy to go ahead.

Ministers say it will prevent further legal challenges to deportation flights - but it does not go as far as some on the Tory right were demanding.

Mr Jenrick has previously suggested the government could quit the European Convention on Human Rights (EHCR).

Instead, the bill allows ministers to disregard parts of UK human rights law.

Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman - an ally of Mr Jenrick - earlier told MPs the legislation was "destined to fail".


The legislation aims to address the concerns of the Supreme Court, which last month ruled plans to send some asylum seekers to the east African country were unlawful.

The bill, which must be voted on by Parliament, orders the courts to ignore key sections of the Human Rights Act in an attempt to sidestep the Supreme Court's existing judgment.

It also orders the courts to ignore other British laws or international rules - such as the international Refugee Convention - that stand in the way of deportations to Rwanda.

However, it does not go as far as some Tory MPs wanted.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67640833


The government of the day muzzling the judiciary!!!

Just like Russia and China do...

And even then the likes of Braverman and Jenrick clearly believe there should be NO Human Right legislation at all on the matter!!!

If any government does this sort of thing once then sooner or later someone will do it again and again.

Are you still certain you are the one speaking up for the people and I'm the crazy one - you know the idiot who is standing up for freedom and democracy for ALL of us including you..!

And fwiw, this is the sort of bloke Jenrick is...

On 14 January 2020, Jenrick approved a £1 billion luxury housing development of 1,500 homes on Westferry Road, Isle of Dogs, proposed by Richard Desmond, a Conservative Party donor and owner of Northern & Shell. A Government planning inspector had advised against permitting the scheme, as it would not deliver enough affordable housing and as the height of the tower would be detrimental to the character of the area.[48]

Jenrick approved the scheme on 14 January knowing that an approval by that date would enable Desmond to avoid having to pay a council-imposed infrastructure levy of between £30 and £50 million, which could have been used for funding schools and health clinics.[49][50] Tower Hamlets London Borough Council then pursued a judicial review against Jenrick’s decision in the High Court, arguing that it had shown bias towards Desmond. It was also reported that Jenrick had helped Desmond to save an additional £106m by allowing affordable housing at 21%, instead of enforcing the local and London-wide planning policy requirement of 35%.[51][52] This could have resulted in a total discount (and subsequent loss of revenue to the Exchequer) of approximately £150 million.[52]

In May 2020, Jenrick did not contest the judicial review, conceding that his sign-off of the scheme was "unlawful by reason of apparent bias". He also confirmed that his approval had deliberately been issued before the new CIL policy could be adopted. This meant that Jenrick was able to avoid disclosing correspondence relating to the application in open court. His planning permission was quashed by the High Court, which ordered that the matter was to be decided by a different minister.[53]

Jenrick maintained that although the decision had been "unlawful by reason of apparent bias", there had been no "actual bias".[54] Desmond, whose company had donated to the Conservative Party in 2017,[49] made a further personal donation to the party shortly after the approval was given. Andrew Wood, the leader of the Conservative group on Tower Hamlets Council, resigned because of his concerns over the property deal.[55] The planning decision will now[when?] be re-determined by a different Government minister. In conceding the move did show "apparent bias", Jenrick effectively blocked the judicial review, which originally prevented documents between his department and the developer from being made public.[53] Mayor of Tower Hamlets John Biggs said: "We may never know what emails and memos the secretary of state received before making his decision and what influence they had, but his reluctance to disclose them speaks volumes."[citation needed]

In June 2020, Desmond told The Sunday Times he had lobbied Jenrick at a Conservative Party fundraising dinner held at the Savoy in November. He said he had showed Jenrick "three or four minutes" of a promotional video for the Westferry Printworks development on his mobile phone, adding "he got the gist".[56] The interview was followed by a Labour Party opposition day motion debate in the House of Commons on 24 June, which forced Jenrick into releasing all "relevant" documents surrounding his dealings with Desmond, including private text messages between him and the developer that show discussion of the then live planning application beginning the night of the fundraising dinner.[57]

One of the emails revealed that Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) officials were being pressured by Jenrick to work out how to overrule the Government's own planning inspector so he could approve the plans before any increase in the Tower Hamlets council community infrastructure levy (CIL), which Desmond would have had to pay.[51] That Jenrick did not disclose to his department his potential conflict of interest until a month after his dinner raised concern.[58] The release of the documents led to calls for Jenrick's resignation for his use of a public office for political favours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jenrick#Unlawful_approval_of_Westferry_housing_development

Hahaha - I thought this was funny from Labour's Chris Bryant...

Sir Chris Bryant for Labour complained in the Commons that the home secretary had "twice refused to answer the question of whether the immigration minister has resigned, but he has, hasn't he?".

He continued: "And can he just tell us, has he resigned because he thinks that this policy doesn't stand an earthly chance of working, or has he resigned because he's embarrassed that a British government would actually put ministers above the law?

"In other words, has he resigned because he thinks this policy is crazy or because he doesn't think it's crazy enough?"

It gets even funnier!

Rishi's reply to Jenrick's resignation...

On the Rwanda bill, Sunak says it's "the toughest piece of illegal migration legislation ever put forward by a UK government", and warns: "If we were to oust the courts entirely, we would collapse the entire scheme."

"The Rwandan government have been clear that they would not accept the UK basing this scheme on legislation that could be considered in breach of our international law obligations," he says.

To which shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, says Jenrick's departure during the Commons announcement of the new Rwanda draft legislation is "a sign of the total chaos in the Tory party" and "complete collapse of Rishi Sunak’s leadership".

She adds: "It shows how incredibly weak the prime minister is that he is telling his backbenchers that the only reason he hasn’t gone further is because the Rwandan government told him not to break international law."

I saw an article in the DM the other day on the Tories stating they are reducing migration by upping the minimum working salary to £34,000 I think it was.

This simply penalises normal people like ourselves where when the Mrs settled in the UK, it took at the time 3 years and had to jump through hoops and at a cost of approx £5,500 (this has increased since).

Once the Mrs had got her British citizenship, the government decided to up the minimum salary someone could earn to be able to bring someone from abroad such as a spouse or girlfriend to £21,000 and if they had dependents then it would go up a couple of grand more per dependent along with having to contribute at the time £800 for the use of the NHS and also extending the process to 5 years.

They are now talking about upping it to £34k obviously you can use a combination of savings and yearly salary but I feel that this is incredibly unfair as if someone who works in a supermarket or a cleaner for example on the minimum wage are unable to bring a loved one across and are denied happiness.

If they want to make sure that the people who come here are genuine then more stringent checks are needed and not to penalise the applicant in a way like this all to try and make it look like the government are cracking down on the migration when it is the migrants/refugees coming through Europe to the UK willy nilly.

The Tories can fuck off for me.

karlypants wrote:The Tories can fuck off for me.

I think the majority of voters think that too Karly.

The following is an analysis of whether the Rwanda Bill could work (and the stupidity of some of the parts of it!)

It is worth a read -

Can the new Rwanda bill work and what could stop it?

Expert lawyers who have been involved in the Rwanda case - or supported the challenge to the policy - have described new legislation as potentially setting up a politically explosive fight with both the Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights.

In last month's Supreme Court ruling, five justices unanimously ruled that the country was not safe - and they listed the detailed evidence about how its asylum system was deeply flawed.

The key element of the government's package tries to deal with this part of the defeat by asking Parliament to declare Rwanda to be "conclusively" safe and simultaneously banning British judges from ever saying it is not.

That is aimed at preventing the courts from once again considering documented evidence about injustices in Rwanda's asylum system. Taken to a hypothetical extreme, if Rwanda exploded with civil war like in 1994 (not something currently likely to happen), British law would still state the country was a safe place to send people.

The plan then orders British judges and courts to ignore the sections of the Human Rights Act that set out how they should interpret safeguards set out in the European Convention of Human Rights. That includes the right not to be tortured, or the right to a fair hearing before a court.

It also prevents judges from considering other international laws - most importantly the Refugee Convention and the United Nations' ban on torture.

This is quite a move to pull off legally and politically on the world stage. On the one hand, the UK freely entered into these laws because it wanted to set a global example for others to follow. On the other, the government has designed a law, say critics, that allows it to pick and choose when it adheres to such global rules - while demanding that Rwanda sticks to the letter all the time.

One highly-respected legal thinker, Professor Mark Elliott of Cambridge University, has already blogged that this is "an astounding level of hypocrisy".

Meanwhile, the Bill reveals an astounding level of hypocrisy in the sense that it is premised on a policy that presupposes that Rwanda will honour its obligations in international law while demonstrating that the UK is prepared to breach its own obligations. It follows that the Rwanda Bill, and the policy to which it seeks to give effect, is ultimately a smoke-and-mirrors exercise that promises something which, as a matter of legal fact, it simply cannot deliver.

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2023/12/06/the-rwanda-bill-and-its-constitutional-implications/

Finally, it says our courts must ignore any other British law that stands in the way of finding the country to be safe - this is important because the Supreme Court said such laws exist.

So where does this leave the plan?

The front page of the bill gives it away. Every piece of new legislation must carry a statement as to whether the plan is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

This bill comes without that assurance - and that means government lawyers have warned ministers it is more likely than not to fall apart under sustained legal challenges.

So if the bill is passed, many experts are gearing up for a new and profoundly messy court battle - if not lots of them. Some of those battles might even start in Edinburgh if the plan runs roughshod over some part of Scots law that Downing Street has not thought of. If that sounds like a plot twist, it happened to Boris Johnson when he was roundly defeated over illegally closing down Parliament amid the Brexit crisis.

At worst, it could lead to an unprecedented constitutional stand-off between Parliament and judges.

The Supreme Court cannot strike down primary legislation - but it has the power to make a "Declaration of Incompatibility". This is a rare judgment that says an Act of Parliament should be rethought because it is incompatible with the basic European Convention of Human Rights safeguards embedded in British law.

Two such rights that come to mind in relation to the Rwanda plan are the right not to be subject to inhuman treatment and the right to have a fair hearing of your case before you are put onto a plane to equatorial Africa.

If the Supreme Court makes a Declaration of Incompatibility, in theory a government should then ask Parliament to amend the offending law. But it does not have to do so - hence the potential stand-off.

So if ministers pressed ahead with flights, it is a racing certainty that claimants would then try to take their case, as would still be their right under the law, to the European Court of Human Rights.

The court in Strasbourg would then have to consider whether it wants to block the plan - and flights - while it considers the case.

If it did that, the bill includes a measure that says ministers can ignore such an order and send a plane skywards anyway.

But two massive obstacles stand in the way of the plan becoming reality.

The first is politics. They need to get this through Parliament - and there is no certainty the House of Lords will comply.

Some observers are already wondering why Alex Chalk, the justice secretary, and Victoria Prentice, the Attorney General, have stood by the bill when they both have constitutional roles in upholding international laws that may soon be ignored. A lot of votes in the Commons may rest on their shoulders.

Secondly, just supposing it did become law, some of the best legal minds in the country have fought the government over Rwanda. The plan could become so mired in challenges in court that it never gets to a final judgment before the General Election clock runs out.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67643900

Just who the Tories think will do all the jobs in hospitality, social care and the NHS when they put up the wage thresholds to come in to the country is beyond me. The NHS won't survive without staff from abroad.

Christ, just how many completely delusional and tunnel vision posters do we have on here? I thought Sluffy was the most brainwashed but he’s being challenged for that role now. Shall we have a competition for who can come up with the most deluded contribution?

To be quite honest 63, like I have said in the past I have voted the Tories in originally so I am not an arse kisser of any.

I simply want what is fair for all in my eyes like most people do.

The majority of people are now fed up with the bullshit and stealth taxes that are happening with this current government.

You are the one who is deluded with them saying this and that to improve the country. It is simply a lie to keep your vote at the next next election.

Funny how they won't call a general election now as they would flop big time right now due to all their failures etc.

Roll on December next year. I can't wait!

Never voted Tory and never will. I grew up in the Thatcher era and saw what she did to this country.

Whitesince63 wrote:Christ, just how many completely delusional and tunnel vision posters do we have on here? I thought Sluffy was the most brainwashed but he’s being challenged for that role now. Shall we have a competition for who can come up with the most deluded contribution?

Why should we bother? You'd walk it.